Does a decades-old place in a reservation list shield an entry from constitutional scrutiny? The Madras High Court has admitted a challenge to specified BC/MBC entries for Christian communities and converts in Tamil Nadu, issued notice returnable in eight weeks and allowed the petitioner to seek interim relief separately. The order does not strike down the entries or suspend ongoing recruitment.
Madurai: Observing that the passage of decades does not by itself establish the constitutional justification for an entry in a backward class list, the Madras High Court has admitted a petition by a candidate in the TNPSC Group IV recruitment process, challenging specified BC and MBC entries in Schedule I to the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 [G. Kodeeswaran v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others].
The order was passed on November 12, 2026 by a Division Bench of Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice M.D. Sumathi. It finds a prima facie case for examining the challenge. It does not finally decide whether the communities concerned should remain in the reservation lists.
Decades of inclusion do not end scrutiny
Early in the order, the Bench observed that the passage of decades does not, by itself, establish the constitutional justification for including or retaining a community in an OBC list. Once a challenge is brought, it is for the government to demonstrate that the classification is constitutionally justified.
Counsel had asserted that a person from a forward community could acquire BC status by joining the Church of South India. The Bench’s response, in paragraph 2, was expressly conditional on that assertion being true. The order should therefore not be read as a final finding establishing that claim in every case.
The entries under challenge
G. Kodeeswaran, described in the order as a candidate from the Kallar community, has applied under TNPSC Notification No. 11/2026 for the Combined Civil Services Examination IV. His case is that the inclusion of certain Christian communities and converts reduces the opportunities available to candidates competing for Backward Class turns, without the required empirical assessment of backwardness.
His petition targets Entries 17, 18, 66, 67 and 138 of Part A, and Entry 78 insofar as it includes Christian Nadar, Christian Shanar and Christian Gramani. It also challenges specified entries in Part C concerning Most Backward Classes, including provisions relating to converts from named fishing communities.
He seeks a declaration that these inclusions violate constitutional guarantees, followed by their deletion from the statutory lists. That is the relief requested; the Bench has not granted it.
The petitioner’s case on the basis for inclusion
The order records his reliance on the history of the Sattanathan and Ambashankar commissions and on subsequent government orders. He argues that the executive included the communities despite the position taken by the expert bodies, and without collecting objective, quantifiable material showing social and educational backwardness.
He also questions what he says is unequal treatment of different categories of converts. According to his submissions, certain Scheduled Caste converts to Christianity enter the BC category, while converts from specified MBC communities retain MBC classification. The correctness of those contentions, and their constitutional consequences, remain issues in the pending case.
To support the challenge, the petitioner relied on several Supreme Court decisions, including The Secretary to Government v. Sameer Ahamed. These are submissions made for admitting the petition and must be distinguished from a final adjudication of the entries now under challenge.
Notice, not a verdict
In paragraph 12, the Bench said the petitioner’s assertions about the absence of objective data, the treatment of expert commission recommendations and the nature of the classifications raised serious doubts requiring constitutional scrutiny. The writ petition is admitted in paragraph 13, and paragraph 14 makes notice returnable in eight weeks.
The petitioner’s lawyer cited urgency because recruitment processes were underway, and the Bench permitted him to file an interim application. The order itself grants no stay of recruitment or of the challenged entries.
The respondents include the State’s Backward Classes, Most Backward Classes and Minorities Welfare Department, its Human Resources Management Department, and the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes Commission. TNPSC was added as the fourth respondent on the Court’s own motion.
Case Title: G. Kodeeswaran v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Case Number: W.P.(MD) No. 32363 of 2026
CNR: HCMD011628662026
Court: Madras High Court, Madurai Bench
Bench: Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice M.D. Sumathi
Order Date: November 12, 2026
Status: Petition admitted; notice returnable in eight weeks. Petitioner permitted to file an interim application.